by Felix Quigley
July 14, 2008
We on 4international take as our starting point the following:
“Tuesday, too, the New York Times ran an article called “Nearer to the Bomb” by nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, former chief scientist of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He wrote that all of Iran’s activities, especially in uranium enrichment, are evidence that its “near-term ability to make nuclear weapons is gathering strength.”
He further warned that once Iran begins enriching uranium to weapons grade on an assembly-line basis, “it could transfer this material to groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.” They could then “fabricate low-technology nuclear explosives with yields nearly as high as the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.” “
This is the most serious question that we as Trotskyists face. Quite simply we will not stand by and allow Israel to be obliterated.
We also believe that there is an alliance here between Islamofascist Iran and US Imperialism. This comes from a long period in which we studied how US Imperialism joined with Iranian Islamofascism in destroying Yugoslavia over 15 years. Please revisit our article which we published yesterday and which deals with the evidence of this alliance produced by the website DEBKAfile.com
And please along with that read a further analysis by DEBKAfile which they printed a couple of months ago.
[begin April 13, 2008 analysis by DEBKAfile here]
Washington Opens Diplomatic Door to Tehran
DEBKAfile Special Report
Certain prominent Americans have undertaken secret colloquy with Tehran and may be preparing to go public and make it official, with the administration’s blessing.
DEBKAfile’s Washington sources name them as Thomas R. Pickering, former ambassador to Moscow, the UN and Israel, William Luers, former envoy to Venezuela and the Czech Republic, and Jim Walsh, a New York Republican Congressman.
They have been quietly encouraged by Rice, defense secretary Robert Gates and influential quarters in the US military and intelligence elite, who are anxious to avert a US-Iranian military clash in the eight months remaining to the Bush presidency and cut the ground from under a possible US or Israel attack on Iran.
They hope direct dialogue with Tehran will act as the groundwork for an understanding between the next US president and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is seen also as stealing some of the thunder from the Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s offer to talk to the Iranians, and arm Republican candidate John McCain with a non-binding option on Iran for his campaign.
The American undercover conversations with Iranian officials have been going on for some time in Geneva, Switzerland, to explore common ground on Iran’s nuclear program.
Last month, the three emissaries produced a working paper called “A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff.”
It proposed bringing Iran’s uranium enrichment program under a multinational consortium including Iran and other governments, such as France and Germany, who would participate in managing and operating the program within Tehran. This would solve the US-Iranian nuclear standoff, ensure that Iran stops short of producing weapons-grade fuel and lift the threat of international sanctions.
President Ahmadinejad was quoted as endorsing the multilateral solution. Although his perception is likely to be different from an American or European version, the paper’s authors believe those differences could be resolved in negotiations.
A serious setback to relations came from Tehran’s intervention in the Iraqi government’s crackdown this month on militias in the southern Basra province and rocket attacks in Baghdad. (DEBKA-Net-Weekly 343 of April 4 published details). Iran’s position as the greatest threat to Iraq was highlighted by Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their testimony to Congress last week – to the point that al Qaeda scarcely rated a mention.
President George W. Bush commented on April 11 that if Iran continues to help militias in Iraq “then we’ll deal with them.” But he also reaffirmed his disinclination for war and preference for diplomatic solutions. “You can’t solve these problems unilaterally. You’re going to need a multilateral forum,” he said.
This testimony and the president’s remarks did not set to rest the Washington cliffhanger over whether the president will opt for military action against Iran after all, before he leaves the White House, or stick to quiet diplomacy and relegate the Iran nuclear headache to his successor.
Bush’s immediate reaction confirmed the latter view: Without prior notice, he sent Petraeus and Crocker to Riyadh. Last week, there was talk of a limited US military action against the Iranian command centers directing, training and army Iraq’s militias. Now, the commander-in-chief was instructing the top Americans in Iraq to persuade the Saudis to blaze the way for Arab rulers to throw their support behind the Maliki government in Baghdad. The object of this exercise was to offset rather than challenge Iranian influence in Baghdad.
A diplomatic, multilateral course appeared to have been set in motion for dealing with Iranian troublemaking in Iraq – if not its nuclear defiance.
But the opposite signal came a day later in an interview the US president gave Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard. The conclusion Kristol drew was that the hearing (given by Petraeus and Crocker) was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.”
Asked whether he thought there was a chance of Bush ordering a military strike against Iran before the end of his tenure, Kristol replied: “We didn’t really talk about that, in all honesty, directly. I don’t think it’s out of the question.”
Clearly, President Bush is leaving everyone guessing up to the last second about which way he will jump.
Diplomacy is meanwhile in motion – whether relevant or not to the president’s ultimate plans.
The former US president Jimmy Carter’s plan to travel to Damascus and meet Syrian president and Hamas politburo leader Khalad Meshaal drew automatic reproof from the US State Department and Secretary Condoleezza Rice. He began his trip in Israel Sunday, April 13, before heading for Syria.
However, the 84-year old Carter’s Damascus venture could fit in with the White House’s broader “multilateral” strategy with regard to Iran. His own party, the Democrats, frown on it. Barack Obama, who is ready to talk to Iran, said sternly Saturday, April 12: “I would not meet with Hamas unless it recognized Israel, renounced terror and abided by previous agreements. I don’t think conversation with them is useful.”
He thus lined up with the Bush administration and the official line of the Middle East Quartet line on the Palestinian terrorist group.
Carter, however, appears to be going with the Bush flow: Is he beating a path to Iran’s allies and proxies, Syria, Hamas, and even Hizballah, to generate an amicable environment for administration diplomats to forge an understanding between Washington and Tehran? Or striking out on his own.
[end DEBKAfile analsis of April 8, 2008 here]
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1344
All of the above is necessarily very complex.
We learned in Yugoslavia that US Imperialism is extremely devious. There are many, many different leads and false trails.
But please consider this. Place all of the above in the light of the quote which we started with from Peter D. Zimmerman containing these words:
He further warned that once Iran begins enriching uranium to weapons grade on an assembly-line basis, “it could transfer this material to groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.” They could then “fabricate low-technology nuclear explosives with yields nearly as high as the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.” “
Do the Jews of Israel really understand what the situation is and how little time they have left?
Perhaps they are so pulverized by the weight of world antisemitism that thjey find it difficult to act. If so then there is a huge responsibility on we as socialist revolutionaries and on principled Jewish and other principled people outside Israel to act.
When we on 4international raised some of these issues a Jewish person called Yamit82 who lives in Israel and writes on Israpundit waded into us with a Stalinist type attack on Trotsky and on us as Trotskyists and he proposed that it was better to wait, do nothing, and see what develops.
The article that I am looking at from Peter Zimmerman is on International Herald of July 7, 2008. This is July 13 2008. Should this article or at least its highlights not be splashed across every Jewish American and European blog.
Why does Yamit82 not write about this and instead of stating that he is glad that Trotsky was assasinated by a Stalinist thug in 1940! Is there not a sickness involved here!
I am no scientific expert but I note from the description given to Zimmerman by DEBKAfile (nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, former chief scientist of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee) that he is indeed an expert.
This should be taken most seriously because the Jews of Israel have got little time left to act.
See also treatment of the issue on the Israpundit blog
4international 